Scott v. Plante’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 federal appellate · 32 district · 8 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Summary judgment may only be granted if, taking the non-movant’s allegations as true and drawing all inferences in his favor, the court is convinced from its review of the evidential sources available that no genuine issue as to a material fact remains for trial, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Moge ex rel. Burns v. Morris · Silow v. Truxmore Industries, Inc.

2. ““The Supreme Court did not reach the issue in O’Connor v. Donaldson, [ 422 U.S. 563 , 95 S.Ct. 2486 , 45 L.Ed.2d 396 ], supra. Nor has this court considered it. It is not the kind of issue, however, which we should attempt to resolve definitively on the record that is before us. In both Wyatt v. Aderholt, [5th Cir., 1974, 503 F.2d 1305 ], supra, and Donaldson v. O’Connor, [5th Cir. 1974, 493 F.2d 507 ], supra, the matter was before the court after trial. It suffices for present purposes to say that it does not appear to a certainty that Scott would be entitled to no relief on his right to treatment claim under any state of facts he could prove in support of that claim. Thus, a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal was improper.” Id. at 947.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Eubanks v. Clarke · Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital

3. “If any person in confinement under commitment, indictment or under any process, shall appear to be insane, the assignment judge, or judge of the county court of the county in which such person is confined may, . . . institute an inquiry and take proofs as to the mental condition of such person.... It shall be competent for the judge, if sitting without a jury, or the jury, if one is impanelled, to determine not only the sanity of the accused at the time of the hearing, but as well the sanity of the accused at the time the offense charged against him is alleged to have been committed. If it shall be determined after hearing as aforesaid, that the accused was insane at the time the offense charged against him is alleged to have been committed, the charge against him shall be dismissed on this ground and the records of the proceedings so noted. In this event, the judge or jury, as the case may be shall also find separately whether his insanity in any degree continues, and, if it does, shall order him into safe custody and direct him to be sent to the New Jersey state hospital at Trenton, to be confined as otherwise provided by law, and maintained as to expense as is otherwise provided for the maintenance of the criminal insane, until such time as he may be restored to reason, and no person so confined shall be released from such confinement except upon the order of the court by which he was committed. This section shall not be construed to prevent the use of the writ of habeas c”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Scott v. Plante